Virgil
Posts:
4,479
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Uncountable Diagonal Problem
Posted:
Jan 2, 2013 3:48 AM
|
|
In article
<de9ee3af-0823-4a99-8216-7b6033235896@po6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 11:22 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ef09c567-1637-46b8-932a-bcb856e41...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 1, 8:59 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <5e016173-aa1b-4834-9d70-0c6b08f19...@jl13g2000pbb.googlegroups.
> > > > com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jan 1, 7:29 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article But in that proof Cantor does not require a well
> > > > > > ordering of the reals, only an arbitrary sequence of reals
> > > > > > which he shown cannot to be all of them, thus no such
> > > > > > "counting" or sequence of some reals can be a count or
> > > > > > sequnce of all of them. --
> >
> > > > > Basically
> >
> > > > Nonsense deleted! --
> >
> > > Nonsense deleted, yours?
> >
> > Nope! --
>
>
> Great: from demurral to denial.
But at least no garbage needing snippage, the like of which fron Ross I
again snipped.
--
|
|
